If god gave us free will, why are we damned if we chose wrongly, need answers !

[DarkSun]

So you agree that when one is judged by Law to be good, he will be in heaven, right? That's exactly what Christianity is.

More is, if you are judged to be 'bad' in accordance to His Law, you'll be in hell. Still God wants to save more and Jesus came such that you believe in Him to be saved even in the case that you are judged to be bad.

You lost sense about His Law, so don't judge yourself to say that you are 'not bad'. To best secure your status to be in heaven, you need thus to believe Jesus Christ. It is warned long time ago that, if you eat the fruits from the Tree of Knowledge to think that you can judge good and evil like God does, the day you eat of it the same day you shall surely die.

That's what Christianity is.

I have a few questions...

What kind of message does it send when an all-merciful being is unable to forgive those who disobey Him? If God is all-merciful but simply cannot help but send people to Hell because they chose their fate, how is He still omnipotent? If God is benevolent, forgiving and loves all people equally, why does He allow good people to suffer and bad people to prosper? If he is unable to help them because we are choosing our fate ourselves and He cannot interfere with free will, then how is He omnipotent? What kind of sadistic parent allows his children to torture themselves to death? And finally, how could a perfect being be this logically flawed?

On a side note, I think Hawking is a brilliant man too.

 

[tarasan]

I have a few questions...

What kind of message does it send when an all-merciful being is unable to forgive those who disobey Him?

If God is all-merciful but simply cannot help but send people to Hell because they chose their fate, how is He still omnipotent?

when an individual makes a choice he limits himself, when God chose to give us free will he limited himself, because in order to maintain that free will he wouldnt be able to intervene as much in that persons life, its not a matter of wether he isnt able to just allow people to go to heaven, rather its what doesnt he. the answer because to force us to go to heaven would be eliminate our choice, clearly he believes what you choose matters.

If God is benevolent, forgiving and loves all people equally, why does He allow good people to suffer and bad people to prosper? If he is unable to help them because we are choosing our fate ourselves and He cannot interfere with free will, then how is He omnipotent?

why are these statements mutually exclusive? I mean all I have to say to this is that he has a good reason, and we see that these labels dont nesseccarily equate with each other, unless you can tell me what your presuming which makes them mutually exclusive

What kind of sadistic parent allows his children to torture themselves to death? And finally, how could a perfect being be this logically flawed?

On a side note, I think Hawking is a brilliant man too.

he isnt logically flaud look at my statements above, and like I said before we dont know outcomes of events or where they will lead, so the first statement you make is again presumptious.

well thats my two pennies

 

[DarkSun]

That... doesn't quite answer my questions... :sarcastic

 

[tarasan]

That... doesn't quite answer my questions... :sarcastic

erm....im not quite sure how to respond to this statement.... come on dark sun if i misunderstood I apologise but can you clarify your points or show me where im wrong, or tell me how to get the hulcinagetic drugs i must of taken if I am so horribly off topic.....

 

[DarkSun]

when an individual makes a choice he limits himself, when God chose to give us free will he limited himself, because in order to maintain that free will he wouldnt be able to intervene as much in that persons life, its not a matter of wether he isnt able to just allow people to go to heaven, rather its what doesnt he. the answer because to force us to go to heaven would be eliminate our choice, clearly he believes what you choose matters.

why are these statements mutually exclusive? I mean all I have to say to this is that he has a good reason, and we see that these labels dont nesseccarily equate with each other, unless you can tell me what your presuming which makes them mutually exclusive

If God's power is limited, then how is He omnipotent? Being all-powerful, with limitation, is not being all-powerful...

he isnt logically flaud look at my statements above, and like I said before we dont know outcomes of events or where they will lead, so the first statement you make is again presumptious.
well thats my two pennies

I don't think that answers how an all-merciful being could smite someone for eternity...

 

[tarasan]

If God's power is limited, then how is He omnipotent? Being all-powerful, with limitation, is not being all-powerful...

it depends on how you define omnipotent, many believe that God can only do what is logically possible because that is the nature of God,to be ordered, structured etc, the only theologian I can think of that stated it in the way that secularist do is descarde. and to take it another angle its not that he cant its that he chooses to limit himself, he chooses to allow us to go our own way regardless of what the outcome is.

I don't think that answers how an all-merciful being could smite someone for eternity...

firstly a very limited view of hell im a seperatist, as in I beleive God seperates himself from those who chose to reject them, their torment and suffering comes from their inability to have a relationship with God.

Although I think i misunderstood the second question I apologise.

 

[Willamena]

To: Flying Teapot, your argument is naive

That would be fine and dandy to do the right things ... But certain things, we don't know what is right or wrong ...

As both teapot and I pointed out, it is apparently the argument that you made.

For example, it says in the bible that if you break the sabbath, you should die ... Further, it says that if your neighbor sees you breaking the sabbath, your neighbor should die too ... Further, there are lots of biblical laws that are not acceptable in today's enlightenment and secular laws ... Your argument is naive ...

This example makes no sense, it doesn't show something we don't know is right or wrong. What is it you're trying to say here about free will?

 

[it's_sam]

It wouldn't mean he is limited if he chooses to limit his influence, and according to most he didnt sit idly by watching everything fall apart since he sent his only son to show the world the power of his works. This gift ofcourse was then beaten tortured and eventualy killed, so i ask you would you want to try intervening again after that? Or would you want to stick to lettin us figure it out for ourselves since we don't want to listen to reality?

 

[tarasan]

It wouldn't mean he is limited if he chooses to limit his influence, and according to most he didnt sit idly by watching everything fall apart since he sent his only son to show the world the power of his works. This gift ofcourse was then beaten tortured and eventualy killed, so i ask you would you want to try intervening again after that? Or would you want to stick to lettin us figure it out for ourselves since we don't want to listen to reality?

who is this statmenet adressed too?

 

[DarkSun]

It wouldn't mean he is limited if he chooses to limit his influence, and according to most he didnt sit idly by watching everything fall apart since he sent his only son to show the world the power of his works. This gift ofcourse was then beaten tortured and eventualy killed, so i ask you would you want to try intervening again after that? Or would you want to stick to lettin us figure it out for ourselves since we don't want to listen to reality?

He chooses to limit his influence? So He's simply choosing to send people to an eternal hell for disbelieving and being disobedient? If that's the case, then He's not all-merciful, He's not benevolent and He's not loving. Even I wouldn't do something that petty, and I'm a flawed human. How could something that claims perfection be so unjust? If the punishment this God gave were finite, then I could understand. But eternal punishment is unmerciful no matter how you look at it. At some point in eternity, the punishment received would have to exceed the crime carried out, and it would be infinitely unjust to continue the punishment. And that aside, what kind of sick person uses torture, pain, fire and/or sorrow as a means of punishment? I'm pretty sure most people have laws against what this guy does.

Also, according to Christian faith, the plan was, all along, that Christ would die the worst possible death for our sins, so that through belief in Him we may be saved. What I'm saying is that threatening to burn people for eternity, is not made up for by sending your Son to die for everyone. I mean really. If I threatened to torture you for all eternity because I didn't like you, how would it make it all better if I let you kill my son? =/

 

[DarkSun]

it depends on how you define omnipotent, many believe that God can only do what is logically possible because that is the nature of God,to be ordered, structured etc, the only theologian I can think of that stated it in the way that secularist do is descarde. and to take it another angle its not that he cant its that he chooses to limit himself, he chooses to allow us to go our own way regardless of what the outcome is.

How can there be multiple definitions of "all-powerful"...? The word doesn't seem that unclear to me. You can't be all powerful if your power is limited. It's a contradiction of terms. :sarcastic

firstly a very limited view of hell im a seperatist, as in I beleive God seperates himself from those who chose to reject them, their torment and suffering comes from their inability to have a relationship with God.

Although I think i misunderstood the second question I apologise.

Haha, it's all good.

Well, if Hell is the despair at being spiritually separated from God, then my argument is that it's still unjust to put someone through emotional anguish for eternity. See my previous post.

 

[Zadok]

If god gave us free will, why are we damned if we chose wrongly, need answers !

Thank you

The naturalist

Because damnation (which is a state of bondage) is in essence one of the choices we will eventually freely make. The only other choice is freedom. But because freedom (being free within one's self) requires discipline and effort - some perfer bondage over the effort required to be free. Therefore, G-d gives us power over our destiny but we must exercise it.

Zadok

 

[Zadok]

...
Well, if Hell is the despair at being spiritually separated from God, then my argument is that it's still unjust to put someone through emotional anguish for eternity. See my previous post.

I agree. Therefore, the only individuals in hell are those that perfer such dispair above having to live and deal with pure intelligence and complete justice.

Zadok

 

[tarasan]

How can there be multiple definitions of "all-powerful"...? The word doesn't seem that unclear to me. You can't be all powerful if your power is limited. It's a contradiction of terms. :sarcastic

I think ohhh so almight wiki will help me in this endevour!!

"Scholastic definition

Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending a deity's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon a deity's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. There are certain things that even an omnipotent deity cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of a deity. The statement "a deity can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power." This standard scholastic answer allows that creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by humans but not by a deity. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to 'sin', for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity. In response to questions of a deity performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God." [2]"


Omnipotence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haha, it's all good.

Well, if Hell is the despair at being spiritually separated from God, then my argument is that it's still unjust to put someone through emotional anguish for eternity. See my previous post.

well then you would have to state why sin isnt bad enough to make it unfiar, I mean in order for your statement to have merit, you must prove that sin isnt enough for a God to do such a thing

 

[DarkSun]

I agree. Therefore, the only individuals in hell are those that perfer such dispair above having to live and deal with pure intelligence and complete justice.

Zadok

Except most other Christian denominations would disagree with you, I think.

 

[DarkSun]

I think ohhh so almight wiki will help me in this endevour!!

"Scholastic definition

Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending a deity's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon a deity's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. There are certain things that even an omnipotent deity cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of a deity. The statement "a deity can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power." This standard scholastic answer allows that creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by humans but not by a deity. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to 'sin', for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity. In response to questions of a deity performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God." [2]"

Omnipotence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I wouldn't mind this very much.

Except for the fact that the definition of omnipotence is to be... omni - potent... all - powerful. In that sense, placing limitations on what the said deity can do negates its all-powerfulness.

But okay, if the definition of 'omnipotence' has been changed somewhere along the line to help fit with the monotheists understanding of God, then could you please explain how it is not logically possible or not within God's nature to prevent suffering. If he is benevolent enough to want to stop suffering, and omniscient enough to find a way to do it without interfering with free will, then why doesn't He? It's certainly within His nature. If God can't stop suffering, not because He isn't omnipotent, but because He can't do these things or doesn't know how, then how is God all-knowing? And if He is all-knowing, and knows how to stop suffering (without interfering with free will) but simply doesn't, then how is He all-loving? And why does God send people to Hell if He is all-loving enough to not want to and omniscient enough to know another way around it?

Also, if God's plan with the world limits what He can do with His omniscience, then why does he let people suffer? I guess what it comes down to is, does God even love us or are we His abused toys? If God is benevolent, then why does He do such a great job of doing nothing?

 

[DarkSun]

well then you would have to state why sin isnt bad enough to make it unfiar, I mean in order for your statement to have merit, you must prove that sin isnt enough for a God to do such a thing

Because the 'sin' was performed in a finite world, and its repercussions on the people of this world would also be finite. So at some point, when punishing someone for eternity, no matter what the punishment is, the punishment would have to eventually exceed the crime comitted.

Should I rephrase?

 

[tarasan]

And I wouldn't mind this very much.

Except for the fact that the definition of omnipotence is to be... omni - potent... all - powerful. In that sense, placing limitations on what the said deity can do negates its all-powerfulness.

But okay, if the definition of 'omnipotence' has been changed somewhere along the line to help fit with the monotheists understanding of God, then could you please explain how it is not logically possible or not within God's nature to prevent suffering. If he is benevolent enough to want to stop suffering, and omniscient enough to find a way to do it without interfering with free will, then why doesn't He? It's certainly within His nature. If God can't stop suffering, not because He isn't omnipotent, but because He can't do these things or doesn't know how, then how is God all-knowing? And if He is all-knowing, and knows how to stop suffering (without interfering with free will) but simply doesn't, then how is He all-loving? And why does God send people to Hell if He is all-loving enough to not want to and omniscient enough to know another way around it?

Also, if God's plan with the world limits what He can do with His omniscience, then why does he let people suffer? I guess what it comes down to is, does God even love us or are we His abused toys? If God is benevolent, then why does He do such a great job of doing nothing?

well like I said before in his all knowingness maybe he believe that ultiamtely the suffering it worth the price, as I said before you cannt say that these are mutually exclusive because he may very well believe that the suffering is worth the outcome, what outcome that is? how can i say? the important thing to take away from this is that ultiamtely you cannot accuse someone of not being consistant when you admittedly dont know what he knows.

 

[tarasan]

Because the 'sin' was performed in a finite world, and its repercussions on the people of this world would also be finite. So at some point, when punishing someone for eternity, no matter what the punishment is, the punishment would have to eventually exceed the crime comitted.

Should I rephrase?

yes you should sin affects us spiritually as well as finitely, remeber sins is not just a crime, its like dirt that has gotten onto a peice of cloth, it doesnt just leave with time or last for an instant.

 

[Peacewise]

Seems to me that we are judged upon our knowledge of what is good or evil and if we do evil knowingly then we are judged appropriately.

In this way God is more merciful than ourselves, for we claim that ignorance of the law is no defense.